Author
Topic: The Willful Abandonment of Orthodoxy (Read 11896 times)

Well, liturgical development SHOULD occur. It is a living tradition and should not be ossified. There should be rules on it, among them that the development be organic. Beware liturgists who want to inflict their pet theories on the rest of us. But no liturgy can be frozen in time.

If you are truly without any knowledge(which I doubt)...then I would suggest a little research is needed.

What I'm referring to is your implications within the context of our discussion...That is what precisely, in terms of liturgical reformations, are you referring to and how really is it possible to measure the result of any specific reformation, as good or bad, especially in light of the broader practises of the church and the dramatically changing cultural tide. One of the reformations was the introduction of the vernacular into the liturgy who would say that this is bad, a practise Orthodox churches have been doing for a long time. Have Catholics decided to apostasise once they started hearing the liturgy in their own tongue...I think with Catholics the issue is more of a pastoral one and perhaps dogmatic rather than liturgical...

Personally, I believe that the single most destructive policy of the Catholic church was the mandatory introduction of the celibate priesthood. How can a church thrive without a priesthood, without servants, without those who will preach and lead? I think if anything such a mandatory policy has caused immense havoc to the Catholic church, nothing to do with liturgical reforms, although of course you will always find your traditionalist detractors.

Personally, I believe that the single most destructive policy of the Catholic church was the mandatory introduction of the celibate priesthood. How can a church thrive without a priesthood, without servants, without those who will preach and lead?

It took a millennium for the policy's consequences to take hold? That's quite a delayed effect!

It took a millennium for the policy's consequences to take hold? That's quite a delayed effect!

That's not true at all...The Protestant reformers of the middle ages also cited the increased sexual misconduct amongst the clergy as a direct result of the policy of mandatory celibacy in the priesthood...

Here are some interesting statistics...Clearly, the western world, represented by the US would indicate a decline in priesthood in the Catholic church. And it is in my opinion that the same trend would extend to the rest of the world in our globalised era and as the entire world becomes more westernised:

That's not true at all...The Protestant reformers of the middle ages also cited the increased sexual misconduct amongst the clergy as a direct result of the policy of mandatory celibacy in the priesthood...

Your argument was that the celibacy rule caused priest shortages. That is without support. Now it seems you have switched to the other old standby, that priestly celibacy has caused increased sexual misconduct. An examination of non-celibate ministries in other churches and of society in general will reveal that sexual misconduct is no more common among the celibate priesthood than it is anywhere else. Having a wife does not cure sexual sickness.

(MTA: This has already been discussed to death on other threads, but I could not let that popular myth pass unanswered. I will say no more. But if you desire more information, type "celibacy" in the search box and you will find plenty.)

Your argument was that the celibacy rule caused priest shortages. That is without support.

I'm really not sure how simply logically that would not be evident...Wouldn't it make sense that you would have more priests if you had a larger pool to select from? And if this is not the cause of the shortage then what is, considering the increase in Catholic parishioners?

Quote

An examination of non-celibate ministries in other churches and of society in general will reveal that sexual misconduct is no more common among the celibate priesthood than it is anywhere else.

This may be the case but is that a high enough standard for the church and how does it compare to married clergy...I would assume that a married man would be safer from sexual temptation than an unmarried man living in a highly sexualised western society.

Quote

Having a wife does not cure sexual sickness.

This may be the case but imposing a policy which is contrary to the healthy natural function of man may indeed increase the likelihood of sexual sickness.

"I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Cor 7:8, 9)

Wouldn't it make sense that you would have more priests if you had a larger pool to select from? And if this is not the cause of the shortage then what is, considering the increase in Catholic parishioners?

It makes no sense to blame celibacy for the shortage of Roman Catholic Priests because sacerdotal celibacy has been a policy of the Roman Catholic Church for centuries, and it wasn't a problem before. The shortage of vocations has only been a problem in the RCC since Vatican II- which, by the way, introduced the kind of Liturgical innovations you stated that you would like to see in the Orthodox Church- changing the Liturgical texts, changing the hymnography, the use of vernacular etc.....

I would assume that a married man would be safer from sexual temptation than an unmarried man living in a highly sexualised western society.....imposing a policy which is contrary to the healthy natural function of man may indeed increase the likelihood of sexual sickness.

You may be surprised to know that most pedophiles are actually married males. If we use your logic, then we can reduce pedophilia by banning marriage! And if marraige is so "safe", why is there a Commandment of the Decalogue specifically about adultery?

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

The shortage of vocations has only been a problem in the RCC since Vatican II

How exactly does Vatican II affect priest shortages if parishioners are increasing...And what exactly in Vatican II are you suggesting would have caused such a result?

Quote

You may be surprised to know that most pedophiles are actually married males. If we use your logic, then we can reduce pedophilia by banning marriage!

I would love to see your stats...Plus my real comparison is married clergy to celibate clergy...

Quote

And if marraige is so "safe", why is there a Commandment of the Decalogue specifically about adultery?

Well, it is St Paul, in the quote given that gives marriage as the safest bet to sexual purity for those driven by passion and not myself.

Adultery is mentioned in the Decalogue as a broader title for many sexual sins and so our Lord Christ when He refers to this sin refers to those married and unmarried. Adultery is specifically mentioned to bring one's attention to the special sanctity and mystery of marriage. It has nothing to do with marriage being safe or unsafe. Or are you suggesting here that it was mentioned because marriage was less safe than celibacy?

...I would assume that a married man would be safer from sexual temptation than an unmarried man living in a highly sexualised western society.

Speaking as a married man who is also a priest---this is a very naive statement. I am sure you did not mean this in such a way, but we live in such a sexualised society that women openly approach men for liasons, and even target married men because the women plan that the married man will be very discrete about the dalliance, so as not to undergo a divorce.

Of course, the targeted man often knows the situation, and since it is understood that the dalliance will be on the 'down low', he gives in to temptation and betrays his wife. Therefore, being married is not an extra aid to resisting temptation.

And women are not the only folks seducing others---I do not want my statement misinterpreted as such. It's just that the assertion was that marriage helps men resist temptation, which is not correct.

I only wish we had more people as innocent as Falafel, and that his statement would actually describe the way things are.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2006, 10:56:10 AM by chris »

Logged

"As the sparrow flees from a hawk, so the man seeking humility flees from an argument". St John Climacus

And if this is not the cause of the shortage then what is, considering the increase in Catholic parishioners?

Decadent Western culture and the "Spirit of Vatican II," which permeated so many in the Church beginning in the 1960s. So many seminaries were hotbeds of it, and so many liberal vocations directors and others actively discouraged and inhibited orthodox men from passing through their seminaries. Obviously, a climate of dissent and rampant homosexuality and a spirit of self-fulfillment (as required by modern psychology) instead of self-sacrifice also reduced the appeal of the priesthood. As the situation has gradually improved in recent years, it is clear that dioceses known for their orthodoxy have booming vocations while dioceses more focused on social work than authentic Catholicism continue to experience emptying seminaries. After wall, why go to the "Pink Palace" (St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore) when you can go to Mount St. Mary's (in Emmittsburg, MD), where your passion for service in the Church's divine mission will be nurtured instead of suffocated?

Sadly, vocations are a serious problem in other churches, as well, including among mainline Protestant denominations (which open their ministry even to women) and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America.

Too many American Christians, unfortunately, live lives indistinct from other Americans. In such a culture, there are never enough people entering service-oriented careers like teaching and social work and the priesthood.

This may be the case but is that a high enough standard for the church and how does it compare to married clergy...I would assume that a married man would be safer from sexual temptation than an unmarried man living in a highly sexualised western society.

This may be the case but imposing a policy which is contrary to the healthy natural function of man may indeed increase the likelihood of sexual sickness.

Married clergy are just as susceptible to sexual abuse as unmarried clergy---which, fortunately, isn't great when compared to public school teachers, for example.

You are claiming that celibacy is "contrary to the healthy natural function of man"? How about bishops in the Orthodox Church or religious brothers and sisters in both East and West? Celibacy has always had a place in Christianity, beginning with John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with married clergy (a married Anglican priest played an instrumental role in my conversion to Christ, and he remains a beloved spiritual father and confessor of mine), but celibacy is also a valued tradition, among whose enthusiastic advocates was St. Paul.

Unfortunately, as Ted Haggard now knows, marriage does not prevent sickness.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“All crime watch organizations report that 85-99% of most pedophiles are middle to upper classed, married, heterosexual men who rarely even visit churches and routinely molest their own daughters and nieces.Ã¢â‚¬Âhttp://www.geocities.com/ambwww/priests.htm

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Therefore, being married is not an extra aid to resisting temptation...It's just that the assertion was that marriage helps men resist temptation, which is not correct.

According to my understanding that's the Biblical assertion. I never stated that marriage would eliminate sexual temptation or even perversion but rather it would provide a safe outlet for the release of an individual's sexual energy as opposed to a person who does not have a permanent or regular sexual partner and may look for any means to gratify their sexual cravings. It is so simply obvious to me that it would be a safer bet. I would agree though that marriage is not meant to heal sexual perversion but I believe it can prevent it from developing in the first place if there is a healthy outlet for sexual energy and it is not repressed in an unhealthy manner.

Quote

Decadent Western culture and the "Spirit of Vatican II," which permeated so many in the Church beginning in the 1960s. So many seminaries were hotbeds of it, and so many liberal vocations directors and others actively discouraged and inhibited orthodox men from passing through their seminaries. Obviously, a climate of dissent and rampant homosexuality and a spirit of self-fulfillment (as required by modern psychology) instead of self-sacrifice also reduced the appeal of the priesthood. As the situation has gradually improved in recent years, it is clear that dioceses known for their orthodoxy have booming vocations while dioceses more focused on social work than authentic Catholicism continue to experience emptying seminaries. After wall, why go to the "Pink Palace" (St. Mary's Seminary in Baltimore) when you can go to Mount St. Mary's (in Emmittsburg, MD), where your passion for service in the Church's divine mission will be nurtured instead of suffocated?

I really think you're just fishing here...That sounds like one individual's running commentary on the issue rather than concrete evidence linking the two...Plus if what you say is really the case then why hasn't a priest shortage coincided with a parishioner decline. Why has Vatican II affected priests but not parishioners. I'm sorry but I don't think that makes any sense at all.

Quote

Married clergy are just as susceptible to sexual abuse as unmarried clergy

What's your authority for such a statement? If you could undeniably prove that to me then I would lay down the gauntlet as that for me would be the ultimate argument. But such has not been definitively reflected here.

Quote

You are claiming that celibacy is "contrary to the healthy natural function of man"?

I never said that in the given context. What I'm stating is that imposing celibacy on an individual can result in an unhealthy form of sexual repression.

Quote

Ã¢â‚¬Å“Sexual abuse is a syndrome acquired early in life and has nothing to do with celibacy. Most pedophiles are married men.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Thanks ozgeorge for the quotes and stats but again I'm really comparing married clergy to celibate clergy.

I never said that in the given context. What I'm stating is that imposing celibacy on an individual can result in an unhealthy form of sexual repression.

It is not imposed. People do not discern vocations without knowing that such a vocation in the Latin tradition includes the charism of celibacy. The only generation that thought differently was in the 1960s-1970s, because they in their quest for "self-fulfillment" expected that modernism would destroy all the "oppressive" and "patriarchal" traditions in the Church and that priestly celibacy would be the first to go. Well, that did not happen---the "Spirit of Vatican II" was stopped in its tracks before it completely overwhelmed the Church in the West.

If you still think, despite the lack of any evidence, that the centuries-old tradition of priestly celibacy caused the current priest shortages and sex abuse scandals, read these books:

the liturgy that we now have is timeless and addresses the needs of every people of every place and every culture in every time.

I'm sorry. I mean no offense here, but that is your personal subjective opinion. I for one, do not find the EO liturgy to 'address my needs'. And if it were for every culture and every time why did other liturgies exist? They did even before 1054.

You like it. You find it helpful to worship. Others do not. Recall that even now there are Western Rite parishes in some EO jurisdictions.

Quote

As far as the times, let me say that the music has changed from place to place and from time to time. If you don't believe me, go to a Greek church one Sunday and a Russian on the next! No, we don't have any rock and roll, "praise bands", but do we really want to trivialize the text by setting it to pop music? No way do I ever, ever want to see that happen! The music can change, but it still must represent a reverence and it must point us to God

And what if a music that does nothing for one person or that they actively dislike *does* point someone else to God? No one human being is the Rule for all of humanity in matters of taste and what touches them deeply.

Again, I do not intend any offense in my observations

With respect,

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

Just to introduce another idea about how people might leave EO (or any other Church for that matter.) What if they moved to a place where there was no EO parish? How about it was an area being newly settled and over time, other Churches came, but not the one that they or maybe their parents or grandparents (if they've been in the new place for some years) had known back East/in Europe/in the Old Country? What if they were the only family of EO extraction for hundreds of miles? Not enough concentration of one particular Church so support a parish and travel is difficult or long?

I'm drawing these ideas from the settlement and immigration to the American West and thinking specifically of Montana. There were enough miners from Eastern Europe that came to Butte (Anaconda Copper and the "Copper Kings") that there has been a Serbian EO church there for a good while. I don't know when the Greek Orthodox parish in Great Falls was started, but it was there 40 years ago and more. There are a few others, but all in the big towns like Billings and Missoula. Last I saw there were 6 for the entire state. So maybe it wasn't so much "willful abandonment" as there wasn't any.

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

And mine. Although in my case it isn't supposition. I spent about a year in exactly that position and not once was I tempted to attend either the Anglican or Roman Catholic churches that were reachable. For me it's decidedly Orthodox or nothing.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

It is not imposed. People do not discern vocations without knowing that such a vocation in the Latin tradition includes the charism of celibacy.

For centuries the vocations of priesthood and celibacy have been two separate charisms, apparently the design of God and the early church itself. A point that Orthodoxy would argue for vigorously. That priesthood and celibacy may be joined or separated with the blessings of God and the church depending on individual charisms. However, when a vocation is imposed where one charism is present while the other is not then this is where an unhealthy form of deviation may manifest itself. Things are not so simple as stated above. Motivations come and go, people experience struggles, people change their mind, people are confident in one area and not so much in another, there are degrees of abilities and so forth...

Quote

The only generation that thought differently was in the 1960s-1970s, because they in their quest for "self-fulfillment" expected that modernism would destroy all the "oppressive" and "patriarchal" traditions in the Church and that priestly celibacy would be the first to go. Well, that did not happen---the "Spirit of Vatican II" was stopped in its tracks before it completely overwhelmed the Church in the West.

Conspiracy theory...The conspiracy theories that are promulgated and spun by anti-Vatican II fundamentalist traditionalists. You keep on speaking about the "Spirit of Vatican II"--what the heck does that mean? Could you please provide me with a single decision of Vatican II that has directly resulted in practical outcomes that have adversely affected the Catholic Church.

Quote

If you still think, despite the lack of any evidence, that the centuries-old tradition of priestly celibacy caused the current priest shortages and sex abuse scandals, read these books:

I would further add that the priest shortage may have been a centuries old problem, when compared to members and converts of the Catholic Church, but one that has become more heightened within recent times.

The priest shortage and sex abuse scandals, in my personal commentary, would reflect a clash of cultures between an extreme conservative celibacy and an increasingly liberal sexualised society.

It has absolutely nothing to do with Vatican II!!!

Quote

The assertions you make are urban myths commonly promoted by anti-Catholic polemicists (chief among them, anti-Catholic "progressive" Catholics) and cheerfully reported by the secular media.

I would have to absolutely disagree my friend but it is rather yourself which has succumbed to Catholic apologetics and seem to have neglected centuries old faithful Orthodox practises. For me it would seem that the Catholic thing to would be to do as it had once done and permit married clergy. From an Orthodox perspective I would see myself as a traditionalist Catholic rather than a progressive one, well especially on this particular issue anyway.

Quote

If we have no Orthodox church within our reach, I suppose we should stay home and pray there and, by no means, go to any other churches.

Personally, if there were no Orthodox church I would attend a Catholic church and if there were no Catholic church then Anglican and if no Anglican I'd probably attend a suitable evangelical church...I simply believe that Christian fellowship is imperative in life...

Your posts indicate that you do not seem very informed on the Catholic issues on which you seem so eager to expound. The "Spirit of Vatican II" is not at all an indictment of the Second Vatican Council but of the reinterpretation by progressives that does not at all reflect the letter or spirit of the council documents. The "Spirit of Vatican II" is the phrase invoked so often by Church modernists. I assumed you knew that.

You still have not marshalled one iota of serious evidence supporting your frankly slanderous assertions that priestly celibacy has caused priest shortages and rampant sexual abuse not seen in other churches. I am amazed at the fixation some non-Catholics have with this Latin-rite discipline, especially since it does not concern them. Perhaps you should aim your attacks on the mandatory celibacy of your own bishops, since you seem to think it is so harmful. Of course, I would defend that tradition too.

I've said on other threads that I would have no problem if Rome made celibacy optional. I'm not some crazy anti-Vatican II traditionalist as you suggest---I believe Vatican II will eventually bear important fruit. However, I do have a problem with dishonest arguments against the celibacy discipline. Read the books I mentioned, by scholars who have extensively investigated these assertions and found them very dubious.

And that is all the time I'm going to waste on this tired question, bizarrely brought up in a thread about people abandoning Orthodoxy for Evangelicalism.

Your posts indicate that you do not seem very informed on the Catholic issues on which you seem so eager to expound. The "Spirit of Vatican II" is not at all an indictment of the Second Vatican Council but of the reinterpretation by progressives that does not at all reflect the letter or spirit of the council documents. The "Spirit of Vatican II" is the phrase invoked so often by Church modernists. I assumed you knew that.

I am well aware of many Catholic issues my friend and would love to know where you came across such a definition of this phrase or whether this was simply your own assumption. Such a phrase written in the given context would definitely appear to be an indictment on the Second Vatican Council. Such a phrase I assume could be invoked by both those for and against the Second Vatican Council with varying connotations.

Quote

You still have not marshalled one iota of serious evidence supporting your frankly slanderous assertions that priestly celibacy has caused priest shortages and rampant sexual abuse not seen in other churches.

I have never proposed to do so and neither have you provided evidence to the opposite effect. How could you not possibly agree that if the ban on married clergy were lifted the problem with the shortage of priests would not be resolved. That flies in the face of any logic and defies all rationality.

Why you would consider my propositions so slanderous I cannot understand either. What dogma of either church have I slandered. This is a question that is being discussed in all churches, especially the Catholic Church. And the propositions I've put forward with my reasonings are also ones being considered. Would those who are considering such thoughts also be slanderous, there's no need for such exaggeration my friend.

Quote

Perhaps you should aim your attacks on the mandatory celibacy of your own bishops, since you seem to think it is so harmful. Of course, I would defend that tradition too.

Thank you for raising the issue as many well respected Orthodox bishops and theologians have also raised this issue and questioned the development of episcopal celibacy and since it is not an article of faith it may be challenged and reverted in the future. Personally, I would much prefer a married episcopcy rather than a celibate one. It's just that celibates, especially monastics, often seem so removed from the daily struggles of most individuals. And again if the position was open to both celibates and the married then the individual would be selected for that particular charism, one which can very well exist in either a married individual or a celibate one.

Quote

However, I do have a problem with dishonest arguments against the celibacy discipline.

I think I've been very fair...it seems that you are unquestioning of Catholic apologetics. How could you simply make a definitive statement on the issue as factual when it really seems that we yet don't have the science to prove anything either way. We are simply discussing reasons and possibilities my friend, nothing wrong with that.

Quote

Read the books I mentioned, by scholars who have extensively investigated these assertions and found them very dubious.

I'll do my very best...Yet however they already seem to leave many questions unanswered since the data perhaps is simply not available.

The idea of just staying home and praying if there is no EO church about may be one answer, but what if one lives in such a situation for many years, or that it was ones parents or grandparents who moved to the more isolated area?

In the course of time, decades perhaps, the family has built up a ranch or farm or become part of the small town and there is no other EO family around. The children grow up and may fall in love with someone they grew up with, who understands the live of that area but who is not EO. Or the family is supported by their neighbors or other farm/ranch families and that becomes their community. Maybe in a time of crisis, it's a local pastor/priest (non-EO) who helps comfort them. The link to the "old Country" or the older generation's remember Church may become stretched and only a memory. That is no "willful abandonment" but the drift that I mentioned or just a case of changes due to situation.

Sometimes things happen with no malice or forethought.

Ebor

« Last Edit: November 30, 2006, 07:44:46 PM by Ebor »

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

It does seem that disobedient Catholics tend to leave for the Episcopal Church. I remember watching Larry King interview Jim McGreevey, the disgraced former New Jersey governor, playing the victim after cheating on his wife with a small army of men. He brought his new male lover to the interview with him and announced that he was now a "practicing Episcopalian." Why did he leave the Catholic Church?

MCGREEVEY: I love my church. I love the traditions. It is what I grew up in. It's what I was, baptized and confirmed. I just can't sit in a pew and listen to someone tell me that, you know, I ought to despise who I am. It is not healthy for me.

KING: That must feel terrible since you believe in the faith, right? It is conflicting.

MCGREEVEY: Yes. It is, for me it is unhealthy.

KING: Did you ever confess to a priest that you were gay?

MCGREEVEY: No. I was afraid to.

----

My mouth dropped open. He NEVER confessed his homosexual sins? And he was expecting to get relief? Talk about unhealthy.

So he jumped ship to the Episcopal Church and obviously to a very liberal parish where liturgy is an empty performance, where sin and redemption have been banished.

I feel bad for the orthodox Episcopalians who have to watch their churches absorb the disaffected jetsam of other churches. Their ultra-heterodox new Presiding Bishop, Katherine Jefferts-Schori, is a former Catholic, and "gay" bishop of New Hampshire, Gene Robinson, is a former Disciple of Christ.

Well, I went unbeliever rather than Protestant, but as a former Protestant I could think of many reasons. The number one would be, the family/friendly feeling you get in many Protestant (especially Evangelical "Bible Believing") Churches. They make you feel welcome. No old lady looking at you funny because you aren't Greek. No Russian priest chanting in a language that almost no one in the Church fully understands. They make you feel welcome, they make you feel like they actually care about you as a person. Now, doctrinally, Orthodox blows just about every Protestant group away (with the exception of Anglicanism)... but most people can't live on doctrine. It takes a certain kind of cold, intellectual person to thrive on doctrinal purity alone.

And for whatever reason, Orthodox Churches (the ones I've been in anyway) aren't prone to being overly friendly to new people (and that's what's needed: to be overly friendly). Oh sure, they say hello, invite people to eat after service, the priest smiles, etc. But that isn't the type of warmness that Protestants have, that's the type of friendliness that any normal person would have in everyday life, whether they were in Church, at work, or at the grocery store. The Orthodox are largely pleased to sit on the fact that they are the real deal, and ignore that many people don't really care about that if there is no "heart" behind it (as Fr. Seraphim might have said). This approach works fine when the entire culture/nation is Orthodox, simply for lack of an alternative. It will work less and less as times go on though.

I know that people will say "Well we have the truth, that should be enough". Ok. You think that. And your churches will shrink. That's like when I got to atheist boards and say that maybe we should be more civil to Christians, and they say that they have the truth and Christians are deluded, and that people shouldn't decide what is true based on how mean people are. It's complete BS. Would you ignore your wife and then rationalize it by saying that she should know that you really love her? People want to FEEL warmth, it's a psychological need. Teaching about the 7th Ecumenical Council won't keep someone in Church (over the long term). Having people there that they feel are friends will.

Now, doctrinally, Orthodox blows just about every Protestant group away (with the exception of Anglicanism)... but most people can't live on doctrine. It takes a certain kind of cold, intellectual person to thrive on doctrinal purity alone.

Sad but so true.

Quote

Teaching about the 7th Ecumenical Council won't keep someone in Church (over the long term). Having people there that they feel are friends will.

I agree, but I also think Orthodox people can be warmer through their theology. This may sound confusing but basic Christianity teaches to love thy neighborr (Parable of the Good Samaritan) and Orthodoxy has many beautiful feasts that can be celebrated by welcoming newcomers.

I have seen this coldness develop in non-Orthodox churches as well. I found that it occurs once a church has been well established and the people grwo comfortable or tired or smug or all.

Logged

Save us o' Son of God, who art risen from the dead, as we sing to thee Alleluia!

I am not sure about the warmth in protestant circles. I have found it to be quite shallow and superficial. It's like only the tip of the ice breaks, and at first they seem friendly-then they go back to there seats with their cliques and clubs where newcomers are shut out. I watched it happen over and over. If they are warm in the beginning it's to give a good impression, but it's only skin deep. After a couple of weeks you are told to get up from the pew because its "their" seat. Got to the point I looked for the little brass plaque saying they bought the pew, and told them I was doing as much.Okay, so after 30 years I got a little snippy!

I do know a couple that says if they don't like what Fr. says, they will just go to the Episcopal church down the road. Like it's a threat! So what are those churches filled with? I know my dh just went up to see the new Thomas Road, and dragged me with him. ( he wanted to see the new architectural overhaul) They really did have a coffee shop and barista's in the lobby! I about fell over, and i grew up there! It just keeps getting worse and worse. they did try to get us to come back... lol!

The "spirit of Vatican II" has almost led to the destruction of the Catholic Church. There is a new theology, where all religions are paths to God and anyone can choose to follow whatever one he wants. Conscience is supreme in the New Church. There is a new, Protestantised Liturgy which downplays the doctrine of the Real Presence. Those who want to follow the old faith and attend/celebrate the Traditional Mass are often fiercely persecuted by the modernists of Rome.

And priestly celibacy was only mandated by Pope Benedict VIII in 1139.

I am a former Roman Catholic who is in the process of converting to Orthodoxy. Disgusted with the state of the Vatican II Church, I attended Traditional Masses when I could (they were only twice a month here), but then I came to the Orthodox Church, which has never had a Vatican II or anything like the Roman Church.

This is only one piece in the overall picture, but it shows the root which has been identified by truly Traditionalist Catholics, Orthodox and even patriots (patriots: whose reason is preventing the subversion of society in general). That root is the sin of perfidy.

St. Matthew's Gospel 22nd Chapter:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind.38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour a

(Heb:6:1 Ã‚Â¶ Wherefore, leaving the word of the beginning of Christ, let us go on to things more perfect: not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith towards God,2 Of the doctrine of baptisms and imposition of hands, and of the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.3 And this will we do, if God permit.4 For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,5 Have moreover tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come,6 And are fallen away: to be renewed again to repentance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God and making him a mockery.7 For the earth, that drinketh in the rain which cometh often upon it and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is tilled, receiveth blessing from God.8 But that which bringeth forth thorns and briers is reprobate and very near unto a curse: whose end is to be burnt.)

St. Matthew's Gospel 22nd Chapter:37 Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart and with thy whole soul and with thy whole mind.38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.39 And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour a

The "spirit of Vatican II" has almost led to the destruction of the Catholic Church. There is a new theology, where all religions are paths to God and anyone can choose to follow whatever one he wants. Conscience is supreme in the New Church. There is a new, Protestantised Liturgy which downplays the doctrine of the Real Presence. Those who want to follow the old faith and attend/celebrate the Traditional Mass are often fiercely persecuted by the modernists of Rome.

And priestly celibacy was only mandated by Pope Benedict VIII in 1139.

I am a former Roman Catholic who is in the process of converting to Orthodoxy. Disgusted with the state of the Vatican II Church, I attended Traditional Masses when I could (they were only twice a month here), but then I came to the Orthodox Church, which has never had a Vatican II or anything like the Roman Church.

The "new theology" of which you speak is not the teaching of the Church. Have you read Cardinal Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus (2000) or the actual documents of the Second Vatican Council? The teaching of the Church endures, no matter how many bishops or priests fall prey to the new theology. If you look at the remaining proponents of the new theology, they are very upset that their revolution failed. The Church is no closer to changes in dogma or moral teaching, even after the tidal wave of the 1960s and 1970s. The new generation is returning to orthodoxy, and the now aging liberals lament regularly the increasingly conservative state of the Church. The Church continues to grow in the developing world, and the worldwide decline in vocations has been reversed. The Church is more than America, remember.

There is not much wrong with the Novus Ordo when celebrated reverently and according to the rubrics. The poor 1970 translations are now being revised to accurately reflect the Latin text. The Holy Father is fully committed to the Reform of the Reform of the liturgy, and the widespread liturgical abuse of 30 years ago is slowly but steadily abating. The liberal priests and bishops of the immediate post-Vatican II generation are getting old, gradually to be replaced by the more orthodox younger generation. At the same time, there are now four priestly fraternities devoted to the Rite of Pius V. The Vatican is prepared to offer the Society of St. Pius X the status as a personal prelature (only Opus Dei, another vibrantly orthodox movement, has that privileged status) once it is brought into canonical regularity. Benedict XVI is very close to promulgating a motu proprio liberating the classical Rite of Pius V for all, with or without bishop approval.

---

The tradition of priestly celibacy goes back far, far longer than 1139. The Synod of Elvira, which predates the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, required clerical celibacy in that region. Celibacy was promoted or required by popes and synods throughout the fourth century and in the centuries after. There was even talk of mandatory celibacy across the entire Church at Nicaea, though most Eastern bishops were not supportive. It is true that it was not enforced across the whole Western church until about a thousand years ago, but then, that is not an argument against it. Doctrine develops, and so do disciplines like celibacy (moreso, in fact). It could change tomorrow. It took centuries after the apostolic era for mandatory celibacy of bishops in the East to be universally applied. That is also a discipline that could change if an Orthodox church wills it. I don't see how it is related to your other criticisms.

---

As for your third comment about "having a Vatican II," read the Council documents. The Council was not the problem. Blaming the Council for the attempted modernist takeover of the Church is like blaming the airplane because a terrorist turned it into a missile (of course, in this case, the towers did not fall).

Every church has its problems, especially in the decadent and corrosive culture of the developed world, and Orthodoxy is no exception (though most heavily Orthodox countries are not part of the developed world, which I think is a spiritual blessing though not an economic one).

The "new theology" of which you speak is not the teaching of the Church. Have you read Cardinal Ratzinger's Dominus Iesus (2000) or the actual documents of the Second Vatican Council? The teaching of the Church endures, no matter how many bishops or priests fall prey to the new theology. If you look at the remaining proponents of the new theology, they are very upset that their revolution failed. The Church is no closer to changes in dogma or moral teaching, even after the tidal wave of the 1960s and 1970s. The new generation is returning to orthodoxy, and the now aging liberals lament regularly the increasingly conservative state of the Church. The Church continues to grow in the developing world, and the worldwide decline in vocations has been reversed. The Church is more than America, remember.

While the Roman Catholic Church has not officially changed their teachings, the "new theology" is rampant everywhere in the Church, especially the pan-heresy of ecumenism. Just because Rome doesn't officially change her teachings doesn't mean that the Church doesn't accept those teachings. Communion in the hand was condemned by Pope Paul VI (but allowed to continue where it had already become an established practice). It had never been an established practice in either the US or New Zealand. So any Catholic in the US or NZ who receives communion in the hand is engaging in a direct act of rebellion against Rome. It would be rare to find a priest these days (not counting SSPX) who would say that all other religions are wrong, even though that is Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching. Interfaith meetings and ecumenical gatherings are common events now, despite being condemned in the past by Pope Pius XI. Lots of priests in the confessional don't tell people who confess using contraception to stop using it if their conscience isn't saying that it's wrong.

Quote

There is not much wrong with the Novus Ordo when celebrated reverently and according to the rubrics. The poor 1970 translations are now being revised to accurately reflect the Latin text. The Holy Father is fully committed to the Reform of the Reform of the liturgy, and the widespread liturgical abuse of 30 years ago is slowly but steadily abating. The liberal priests and bishops of the immediate post-Vatican II generation are getting old, gradually to be replaced by the more orthodox younger generation. At the same time, there are now four priestly fraternities devoted to the Rite of Pius V. The Vatican is prepared to offer the Society of St. Pius X the status as a personal prelature (only Opus Dei, another vibrantly orthodox movement, has that privileged status) once it is brought into canonical regularity. Benedict XVI is very close to promulgating a motu proprio liberating the classical Rite of Pius V for all, with or without bishop approval.

How often do you ever seen the Novus Ordo celebrated correctly, in accordance with the rubrics? Almost never. How often do you see a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated at the High Altar, with the priest facing Our Lord in the Tabernacle, using incense, a chalice veil, and all the other things that are generally left out? But the fact remains that the Novus Ordo is a Protestantised Mass. It is quite similar to the Anglican service. The Consilium who designed the New Mass left out the same prayers as did Luther, Cranmer, and the other Protestant reformers. All reference to sacrifice has been removed, along with the 'oblation of the victim to God'. The Mass has essentially become a 'celebratory meal'. The priest faces the people across the 'table', because it's rude to celebrate a meal with your back to your guests. The Altar, on which sacrifice is offered, has been replaced with a table, upon which a meal is served. The Tabernacle has been removed from the Altar and often pushed off to the side, in spite of Pope Pius XII saying that "to separate tabernacle and altar is to separate two things that by their nature should remain united". Instead of facing God upon the Altar at Mass, they face a priest. Man has quite literally de-throned God at the New Mass and put himself in His place.

Quote

As for your third comment about "having a Vatican II," read the Council documents. The Council was not the problem. Blaming the Council for the attempted modernist takeover of the Church is like blaming the airplane because a terrorist turned it into a missile (of course, in this case, the towers did not fall).

While to a certain extent you're right, the Council did contain several errors. The first was that of religious liberty. The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church had always been that no-one has a right to stop anyone from following the Catholic religion. The idea that man was free to follow any religion he thought was true was expressly condemned by Pope Pius IX in his "Syallabus of Errors". Yet this teaching which had been condemned previously made its way into Vatican II. Other teachings that the Roman Church had previously condemned ended up in Vatican II. For more info on Vatican II, see http://www.sspx-schism.com/Vatican2.htm

While the Roman Catholic Church has not officially changed their teachings, the "new theology" is rampant everywhere in the Church, especially the pan-heresy of ecumenism. Just because Rome doesn't officially change her teachings doesn't mean that the Church doesn't accept those teachings. Communion in the hand was condemned by Pope Paul VI (but allowed to continue where it had already become an established practice). It had never been an established practice in either the US or New Zealand. So any Catholic in the US or NZ who receives communion in the hand is engaging in a direct act of rebellion against Rome. It would be rare to find a priest these days (not counting SSPX) who would say that all other religions are wrong, even though that is Catholic (and Orthodox) teaching. Interfaith meetings and ecumenical gatherings are common events now, despite being condemned in the past by Pope Pius XI. Lots of priests in the confessional don't tell people who confess using contraception to stop using it if their conscience isn't saying that it's wrong.

How often do you ever seen the Novus Ordo celebrated correctly, in accordance with the rubrics? Almost never. How often do you see a Novus Ordo Mass celebrated at the High Altar, with the priest facing Our Lord in the Tabernacle, using incense, a chalice veil, and all the other things that are generally left out? But the fact remains that the Novus Ordo is a Protestantised Mass. It is quite similar to the Anglican service. The Consilium who designed the New Mass left out the same prayers as did Luther, Cranmer, and the other Protestant reformers. All reference to sacrifice has been removed, along with the 'oblation of the victim to God'. The Mass has essentially become a 'celebratory meal'. The priest faces the people across the 'table', because it's rude to celebrate a meal with your back to your guests. The Altar, on which sacrifice is offered, has been replaced with a table, upon which a meal is served. The Tabernacle has been removed from the Altar and often pushed off to the side, in spite of Pope Pius XII saying that "to separate tabernacle and altar is to separate two things that by their nature should remain united". Instead of facing God upon the Altar at Mass, they face a priest. Man has quite literally de-throned God at the New Mass and put himself in His place.

While to a certain extent you're right, the Council did contain several errors. The first was that of religious liberty. The teaching of the Roman Catholic Church had always been that no-one has a right to stop anyone from following the Catholic religion. The idea that man was free to follow any religion he thought was true was expressly condemned by Pope Pius IX in his "Syallabus of Errors". Yet this teaching which had been condemned previously made its way into Vatican II. Other teachings that the Roman Church had previously condemned ended up in Vatican II. For more info on Vatican II, see http://www.sspx-schism.com/Vatican2.htm

"Look not on our sins but on the faith of your Church." The faith remains intact, regardless of current practice (which is improving). I suppose you would have jumped ship in the 10th century or the 15th century too? At least today we have a holy pope.

Communion in the hand, which I don't personally do, was practiced in the early Church. I'm not particularly fond of it, but it is the prerogative of our bishops to allow it. You can criticize it as imprudent, but you cannot call it a heresy, as you seem to be saying. It's a PRACTICE. The same could be said of ad populum instead of ad orientum, though I agree with you that the latter is better.

The Novus Ordo, like I said, is not bad if celebrated reverently and according to the rubrics (though I still prefer the old rite as more organic). The problem with the Novus Ordo is that it can be easily abused. It doesn't change Catholic teaching, though it does emphasize the horizontal nature of worship at the expense of the vertical. It is still a holy sacrifice, and it is also a meal. Once again, there are no heresies in the new rite and neither in the Council documents. It's the carrying out of the reforms that has been disastrous---fortunately, things improve with each passing year, and we are farther and farther away from the dark years of the 1970s.

Vatican II vs. Syllabus of Errors on religious freedom? Councils carry more weight than papal encyclicals, in case you've forgotten. Of course, if it's encyclicals you care so much about, read John Paul II's on religious freedom (unless you think he's an imposter pope). God gives us religious freedom, and so should the Church.

I would be careful about using SSPX as your source. They condemn ecumenism, as you do, but they include in their condemnations ecumenism with what they call the "schismatic and heretical Eastern Orthodox," the Church you seem to be joining. They also say that Eastern Catholics who have removed the filioque from their creed are Photian heretics. So it seems strange to me to condemn ecumenism (presumably because you want the Catholic faith to remain pure) but then leave to one of the churches with which the Catholics had the ecumenical relations you condemn.

I am not sure about the warmth in protestant circles. I have found it to be quite shallow and superficial. It's like only the tip of the ice breaks, and at first they seem friendly-then they go back to there seats with their cliques and clubs where newcomers are shut out. I watched it happen over and over. If they are warm in the beginning it's to give a good impression, but it's only skin deep. After a couple of weeks you are told to get up from the pew because its "their" seat. Got to the point I looked for the little brass plaque saying they bought the pew, and told them I was doing as much.Okay, so after 30 years I got a little snippy!

It is unfortunate that you had such experiences.

Quote

I do know a couple that says if they don't like what Fr. says, they will just go to the Episcopal church down the road. Like it's a threat! So what are those churches filled with?

Umm They're filled with other human beings made in the image of God....

Quote

I know my dh just went up to see the new Thomas Road,

Would that be Jerry Falwell's church? I think it's called "Thomas Road Baptist" (It's been a long time since heard him on the radio so I don't remember exactly.)

Ebor

Logged

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis